| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Weekly Submissions

This version was saved 15 years, 6 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by PBworks
on September 9, 2008 at 6:59:39 pm
 

You can upload your weekly submissions here. Just paste them from a text file. You will need to use the password for this. Don't forget to write your name.

 


 

Week 3

 

 

 

 

Shawn Brady

 

It has been posited that the mind entails a wealth of understanding which has not been, and cannot be, accounted for in a physical symbol system. For example, as opposed to the scripts in Schank’s program which were used to suggest certain behaviors for certain situations, humans seem to be able to respond to unlimited situations in an unlimited amount of ways. It is doubtful that enough scripts could ever be entered into Schank’s program so that it would know what to do in any given situation. Why are humans able to do this? Hubert Dreyfus’ answer is that the human’s know-how is derived from “a kind of pattern recognition ability honed by extensive bodily and real-world experience” (37).

 

 

But does it simply come down to this? Does a physical-symbol system fall short of exhibiting true intelligence merely because the mind and its broad knowledge base are flexible in this experiential way? Can a human’s experiences lead to and account for their every action and thought? What if someone is presented with a completely unique situation about which they have never learned, thought, or experienced? Would they simply piece together bits of information from related experiences so as to determine what the best choice might be? If so, how is that different from the “guessing” done by Schank’s program?

 

 

 

 

 

 

James Durand

 

Because our minds are software ran within our brain, it is not hard to believe that there is more than one process at work at any given time.  Can't we walk and chat with our friends in the same manner as a computer can surf the internet while playing music?  Truly, our minds seem to have a whole lot of sub programs running, one for keeping balance, one for scanning for dangerous or out of place objects and one for playing a chorus of a song over and over in your head.  Each section is mildly autonomous, and can keep on doing without you concentrating on it.

 

 

Regardless of the autonomy of the subprograms, something in there is still deciding which subprograms get to be running.  Thus this multi-mind theory does not explain what your mind (core mind?) is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Gerken

 

 

According to the description given, Schank's program receives a brief outline of events, then is asked a general question about the story that wasn't explicitly covered. This sounds like it is coming to some conclusion about what actually happened, but it isn't. The program has a large set of “fuller scenario”s which it uses to fill in the wholes in the story. For example in the restaurant script, the lack of telling the program you ate your food is irrelevant because it sees you were in a restaurant and knows what takes place inside, according to its “fuller scripts”. To combine its previous knowledge and your story it could simply merge them together, creating one large series of events. After finding all of the fuller scripts that fit within the restaurant script, the program need only search for all permutations of a substring from your question. After which the program would respond accordingly.

 

 

Why is/was this considered artificial intelligence, when all he's done is automate the process of copy-pasting stories together into Microsoft Word, then hitting Control-F to find a word, or set of words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alex Hyatt

 

To try and concentrate on what exactly is understanding, various artificial intelligence examples are given as well as a famous example from John Searle. The example is known as the “Chinese Room” and creates a scenario in which a monolingual English speaker is placed in a room with papers filled with foreign Chinese symbols placed in front of him. The person then manipulates the symbols following English instructions. It is an example that follows the actions of a Turing machine. The point is that there is no real understanding of Chinese, yet the person appears to be able to converse in Chinese.

                                              

I think, however, that the person does have to have some level of understanding of at least where to put the symbols to create the conversation. Does there not have to be some understanding to read the English and use it to move around the symbols to make some sense? If not, what then is understanding? And also, does one need feelings or experience for understanding, even on the most basic level?

 

 

Andy Tucker

 

We start out saying that intelligence and understanding is exhibited in any entity that uses a Physical Symbol System, but come to refute it because it equates understanding and intelligence to too simple a method, that could not possible do everything of which our brains are capable (experiential learning). We then add some complexity until we have a model like the SOAR system where we add a single working memory and a database memory for which the system to pull information. This is again refuted because it is not complex enough. In the human mind it seems that we have many of these processes occurring simultaneously and producing a multitude of unpredictable outcomes. To reproduce this functionality something with many parallel systems communicating with one another would have to be created and intelligible behavior would have to be “coaxed” out of the system.

How is this intelligent behavior when earlier it is said that you must have deliberate thought for intelligence. It seems more like random chance that you would get an intelligent reaction.

 


 

 

Week 4

 


 

Week 5

 


 

Week 6

 


 

Week 7

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.